Do you feel the Indycar rules should be available to fans?

[flatlander_48]

I think anything that is offered as to why the rules are not published is an excuse and not a reason.

[INDYINDY]

Can anyone offer up a single good reason why they are not publicly available?

The only real reason I can think of that they don't do it is that it would be harder to "stage manage" the "show." And that is not a good reason.

[icrackedtheaces]

The "Edmonton Rule" is/was not in the rule book. Those "rules" are covered in the drivers meeting.

That makes it more idiotic.

[Gomer Simpson]

No way should the rules be available or published for public scrutiny. 99.9 percent of motor racing fans,myself included, are far too intellectually challenged to make constructive use of them. Please keep me in the blissfully ignorant darkness. Motor racing is a sensory event, all about the sights, sounds and, smells. Leave the rules to those who need to apply them.............the league, the constructors, and the drivers.

Momma says stupid is as stupid does.

[Indy-hp]

Should IndyCar rules be available to the fans?

Absoluely, positively, yes, Yes, YES!

Without transparency in the rules, it is not a true sport, but merely another form of entertainment, like Hollywood or "professional" wrestling.

[Mindervillain]

I agree that the rules should be available to everyone. But of much more interest, and far less likely to be generally distributed, are the memos that go out at just about every event and are hand distributed to the teams making alterations or additions to the rule book - often in response to something that hadn't occured to anyone until that weekend.

[Mike Kellner]

the memos that go out at just about every event and are hand distributed to the teams making alterations or additions to the rule book - often in response to something that hadn't occured to anyone until that weekend.

Should they be doing that without public notice? Should they be doing that at all?

Why have a rule book if you need to rewrite it each race? Why isn't there a comprehensive rule book that covers pretty much everything?

This is the 100th Anniversary of Indy and this series has roots that go back to 1907. Pretty much everything has to have happened once or twice by now. F1 has a rule book that covers everything, and all disputes are decided by what is written in The Sporting Regulations. "Don't worry", "we'll figure it out somehow", and "we muddled through the last 200 races, didn't we?", are not what we should have if this is a professional sport and not an expensive hobby.

mk

[Mindervillain]

Why have a rule book if you need to rewrite it each race? Why isn't there a comprehensive rule book that covers pretty much everything?

mk

And yet, if you were to look closely at uprights, or wing supports and internal bracing, or even at the mirror supports visible in just about every photograph, you'll see changes made within the existing rules, not anticipated by any engineers, that call for rewrite - particularly if they create a structural, safety or cost issue, actual or potential.

Similar notices and memos are common in every series I'm familiar with including F-1. It might help if you realize that team engineers are almost always better paid than series engineers - and there's way more of them.

[INDYINDY]

Indy Car and F1 are both highly regulated, and that is the problem. Freedom to innovate will be the only thing that can save them.

[xorpheous]

Indy Car and F1 are both highly regulated, and that is the problem. Freedom to innovate will be the only thing that can save them.

+1

[Mindervillain]

Indy Car and F1 are both highly regulated, and that is the problem. Freedom to innovate will be the only thing that can save them.

But that takes us back to the spec vs non spec argument. If it's true that technology = money, then whoever spends the most money will always win - the old Audi domination of IMSA is the usual example - and the fans lose interest.

With both IndyCar and F1 we have partial spec, or perhaps spec trying to disguise itself as innovation, so several teams dominate. Whether this is good or bad is up to the fans - we vote with our wallets and our feet. How we'll vote when faced with spec chassis and innovative looking skin remains to be seen. How we'd vote with a series totally dominated by one team will, I hope, never be learned.

[INDYINDY]

Mindervillian, cutting costs has been the problem, not the solution. Participants should be free to spend whatever they want, provided their equipment meets the safety regulations. Racing should be competitive, not socialist in nature.

Besides, what has spec racing brought us? Is the series a level playing field?

[Mike Kellner]

And yet, if you were to look closely at uprights, or wing supports and internal bracing, or even at the mirror supports visible in just about every photograph, you'll see changes made within the existing rules,

Why should the series be regulating uprights and mirror mounts other than to make sure they are strong enough to keep the wheels & mirrors on the cars? They didn't regulate such things in our glorious past and there was no epidemic of wheels and mirrors falling off. The rule book can specify tests parts must pass to insure safety without needing a rewrite every time a team comes up with a clever idea. For instance, uprights & mirror mounts could have a specification as to material, construction technique, and minimum weight. Beyond that, why should those items be regulated? I can see a requirement that mirrors be placed so drivers can see what is behind them. That doesn't need a new rule each week.

mk

[Mindervillain]

Why should the series be regulating uprights and mirror mounts other than to make sure they are strong enough to keep the wheels & mirrors on the cars? They didn't regulate such things in our glorious past and there was no epidemic of wheels and mirrors falling off. The rule book can specify tests parts must pass to insure safety without needing a rewrite every time a team comes up with a clever idea. For instance, uprights & mirror mounts could have a specification as to material, construction technique, and minimum weight. Beyond that, why should those items be regulated? I can see a requirement that mirrors be placed so drivers can see what is behind them. That doesn't need a new rule each week.

mk

It all depends on whether or not you're okay with the champion always being the team that has the unlimited funding needed to engineer and wind tunnel test countless versions of a mirror support or build suspension pieces from the latest alloy or composite. IndyIndy seems to be okay with the concept; I prefer watching races won on the track. It may be an age thing.

Maybe in the new world of racing Ganassi will build grandstands inside his Laurel Hill Tunnel so we can watch the real competition where it's happening.

[Mike Kellner]

It all depends on whether or not you're okay with the champion always being the team that has the unlimited funding

Racing has always been dominated by the rich teams. I have followed the sport since 62, it has always been this way. Spec just makes it more boring, and reduces the chance that a small team will have a good idea and win a few. The level playing field is a dream, it doesn't happen unless you want the sport to end up as IROC.

Right now we run one car and there is very little that can be modified and yet Penske & Ganassi dominate. Money buys speed. Always has, always will.

mk